quote: Uh, so you became a Christian all on yer own? All of a sudden it dawned on you that there was this guy Jesus and he'd done some really neat stuff for you?
That's why I say "beyond that required of other conclusions".
Agnostic isn't nothing; it's a thought through belief system just like any religion. If what you say is true, that Geo meant we're all born with clean slates, then yes I agree, but to me saying we're all born agnostics suggests that any conclusion reached about a God requires some outside tampering beyond that required of other conclusions. THAT I don't agree with.
It's clear you don't understand the term "agnostic", which basically means the "clean slate" you are talking about. Atheism is what you are more against and consider a belief system, although there are different types of atheists.
Atheists like me and apparently George simply stopped worrying about the whole "god" thing and moved on with our lives. I see no evidence that a god exists, so I don't believe in it. It's not that I have "proof" there is no god, there's just no proof that there is one either, so why should I believe in it? It's not a "belief system", because there is nothing to believe in. It's literally the absence of belief.
To me, atheism doesn't have good answers on some important questions, but this isn't always apparent until later, or until atheism dominates a society instead of being a small percentage of it as it is in the US.
One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea ends up in anarchy. It's impossible to have complete freedom without injuring each other. (If my values say stealing is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, that sounds good to you until you're my victim or vice versa.) A society can tolerate a few anarchists, but if a lot opf people become that way, it'll be obvious it doesn't work. WHich is why we need a Lord.
Another problem (related to anarchy) is standards. If there are no universal standards, you're left with anarchy (mutual blood-letting of many kinds)... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)... of oppresive dictatorship (this is the way of evolution- survival of the fittest). We need one Lord to survive as humans with some civility. Some days I think it would be a lot easier to not be a Christian. Then I wouldn't have to have quams about cheating on my wife when I felt like it, being harsh with my kids, stealing, etc. But the sensible part of me tells me that I'm better off in the long run with God's standards than following my feelings.
One of the "big" reasons people abandon God is that they've been disappointed. A loved one dies, they get a chronic disease, etc. Then we ask "why?" and conclude God is not around so abandon beleif. But the fact is, abandoning God does not make disaoointment go away. Atheists still wonder "why?" and are no less disappointed with how life turns out than Christans are. But Christians have God to help them through it, which makes more sense to me.
I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. Not just overlloking our bad side and saying it's OK because we all have it. But genuine grace, calling our bad side genuinely evil, but having God's grace to forgive and more than cover it, to treat us better than we deserve. And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve.
So on the big questions, to me Christianity has better answers than atheism/agnosticism.
Some atheists are raised Christian to one degree or another, then abandon faith. Their lives seem OK.
But I'm most concerned about their children (or grandchildren) who are raised without the same Christian upbringing they had.
First generation atheists I think take some of their Christian upbringing with them into atheism. They live by some Christian values without perhaps admitting it. And these values give them some foundation and benefit.
But the second generation is more likely to abandon those good values and foudnation because they don't have the same Christian upbringing as their parents, and don't have the reason for the values or behavior. The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded. Then parents wonder why their kids didn't turn out to have as good of values or behavior as they did. I often see this even among Christian parents who have faith and morality, but don't give their kids the same Christian training they had growing up. They think their kids will pick it up by osmosis without Christian trainging. But they usually don't.
I suspect that if the USA continues to turn away from its Biblical foundations (which deists had as well as Christians), some "American" values (which are based on the Bible) will erode or change as well. And the result will be that the USA of 2050 will be uglier than that of 1950.
I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.
Interesting how you equate atheism with anarchy. I guess that's supposed to be a self-evident result?
News to me. Likewise you assume that without a holy thunderer to keep us in line, the first thing we'll do is step out on our wives and maybe indulge in unbridled nose-picking?
Funny, but I fail to see a connection between belief and morality. In fact, the most debauched bastards I've ever known personally were also the most ardent in their faith. Maybe I just knew the bad ones?
Oh, and do tell me about how awful it is in Japan. Obviously, they worship the wrong god...
quote: It's clear you don't understand the term "agnostic", which basically means the "clean slate" you are talking about. Atheism is what you are more against and consider a belief system, although there are different types of atheists.
Atheists like me and apparently George simply stopped worrying about the whole "god" thing and moved on with our lives. I see no evidence that a god exists, so I don't believe in it. It's not that I have "proof" there is no god, there's just no proof that there is one either, so why should I believe in it? It's not a "belief system", because there is nothing to believe in. It's literally the absence of belief.
I think everybody has a belief system. I was taught that atheists are SURE there's no God, but agnostics weren't sure, but leaning that way and not easily swayed by religious people. Former Detroit Piston center Bill Laimbier described himself that way once. He said he's not sure one way or the other if there's a God or not, but he definitely doesn't allow religious people to tell him how to go about his business.
I've never read or heard a dictionary type definition of agnostic, but I'm curious as to the breakdown of...a (not) gnostic (the gnostics were a very influential cult during the 1st century). Interesting. But even saying there's no proof of the existence of God in and of itself is systematic. It presupposes that the issue has been considered, weighed, and evaluated. That's pretty much what a belief system is. I don't think religion should be penalized as a belief system just because it includes a God. God's not down here directing traffic; it's just you and me on a level playing field. I don't have a problem with that.
...and I don't think it's so much that agnotics (or atheists for that matter) consider that "the issue has been considered, weighed, and evaluated" so much but that they personally have not seen convincing evidence of the existence of God.
Johnj:
Any backing to your assumption that atheism = anarchy?
To me, atheism doesn't have good answers on some important questions, but this isn't always apparent until later, or until atheism dominates a society instead of being a small percentage of it as it is in the US.
I'm not aware of atheism ever dominating a society in modern times (communism doesn't count because it uses religious ideas as a base of government worship).
One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea ends up in anarchy. It's impossible to have complete freedom without injuring each other. (If my values say stealing is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, that sounds good to you until you're my victim or vice versa.) A society can tolerate a few anarchists, but if a lot opf people become that way, it'll be obvious it doesn't work. WHich is why we need a Lord.
So you support freedom for some but slavery for most? You're presenting a false situation. If religion is man-made, that means that morals are man-made as well. Things like stealing not being morally acceptable are based on common sense and should not need a "lord" to enslave you and tell you right from wrong. If you can't tell right from wrong on a basic level you have a mental illness. Most people, Christian or not, know that it is wrong to steal.
Another problem (related to anarchy) is standards. If there are no universal standards, you're left with anarchy (mutual blood-letting of many kinds)... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)... of oppresive dictatorship (this is the way of evolution- survival of the fittest). We need one Lord to survive as humans with some civility. Some days I think it would be a lot easier to not be a Christian. Then I wouldn't have to have quams about cheating on my wife when I felt like it, being harsh with my kids, stealing, etc. But the sensible part of me tells me that I'm better off in the long run with God's standards than following my feelings.
Alternatively, letting society define the rules rather than being under religious tyranny results in things like Democracy and Representative Republics. You can't just pick and choose the worst. Governments come from societies creating order, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad.
One of the "big" reasons people abandon God is that they've been disappointed. A loved one dies, they get a chronic disease, etc. Then we ask "why?" and conclude God is not around so abandon beleif. But the fact is, abandoning God does not make disaoointment go away. Atheists still wonder "why?" and are no less disappointed with how life turns out than Christans are. But Christians have God to help them through it, which makes more sense to me.
This is a pure strawman. I'm not dissapointed with life after becoming an atheist. I'm pretty happy and live much more comfortably than I did as a Christian. You just make this stuff up to make yourself feel better about your choice.
I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. Not just overlloking our bad side and saying it's OK because we all have it. But genuine grace, calling our bad side genuinely evil, but having God's grace to forgive and more than cover it, to treat us better than we deserve. And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve.
You don't know what I need, and somehow I doubt you've looked into any religions other than Christianity for anything.
So on the big questions, to me Christianity has better answers than atheism/agnosticism.
That is your choice, but you don't need to act so egotistical and high and mighty in rejecting other people's choices. Don't state your opinions as fact and tell us that everyone needs to think like you do.
:huh: Wow, John J, you really don’t have much faith in humanity, do you? Do you really think that non-Chrisitians would bring the world to its knees with corruption, debauchery and violence if they were to become the majority?
Aren’t there scriptures that refer to the fact that non-Christians “do good” and “live well” even without the Christian laws?
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
Luke 6:33
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Romans 2:14
Are not so-called “Christians” responsible for some of the most violent, heinous and inhumane actions, battles and wars in history? A "Christian" government scares me more than anything else - I'm afraid we'd see things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Scarlett Letter, Witch Hunts, suppression of ancient manuscripts and the like all over again. We've come a long way regarding religious tolerance and education of different beliefs - including how absolutely similar they all are.
It seems much more peaceful to have rulers who don't really care what people believe - or if they "believe" anything at all. *shrug* Dunno why that's so threatening to so-called Christians. I'll tell ya, though, it's one reason why I've got the utmost respect for Wiccca, Pagan, atheist, agnostic and even Judaic studies - as a whole, the attitude is, "this works for me - may not work for you, but it's what I study, believe and practice. Good luck with whatever it is you decide is best for you.
On another note, some people can't be pigeonholed as atheist nor agnostic - they just don't care - there may or may not be a God, but they just don't really care and certainly aren't going to waste any more of their time trying to decide what "label" to put on their beliefs.... I'm pretty much coming to that conclusion myself.
The only post in this thread that resembles the “reformed smoker” attitude is the one from Sudo. Comparing it to a previous post in “How can you not Believe” from December 23, 2005, the tone is less caustic, but not to the caliber of one by Oakspear or others I mentioned earlier.
So here’s another question . . . why the difference in attitudes? Just poster “personality” or something else I’m missing?
Suda (confused and bruised and miffed by Sudo’s posts)
(((((Suda)))))
Most of us can be rather caustic and downright crude in our language at times - especially when the topic is something we're extremely passionate about. :) There are, also, personality differences and maturity levels that generate a prism of expression among people. I wish that I could control my volume and tone of voice better when I'm peeved about some things. I know it's possible because I am able to do it in other situations.
Earlier, you mentioned supernatural-like experiences and those carrying some weight regarding one's belief in God. I know some people who have had these kinds of experiences while practicing Reiki or some other non-Christian belief and they only serve to strengthen whatever it is that person believed in or was practicing at the time. Likewise, others have searched for logical, scientific explanations for what they experienced and not found one.
A friend of mine hears classical music in her head - beautiful music she's never heard before in her life. It's only happened to her a few times and, while she enjoys the private concert it scares her because she doesn't believe it's God trying to tell her something - she doesn't believe it's the "ascended masters" trying to communicate with her - she doesn't know enough about chakras, vibrational levels and the such to know if that's really a true/viable explanation but she knows she's not insane and she's knows she's not schizophrenic, which is the prevalent medical explanation. So my friend suffers in silence, afraid to talk about it and afraid of what it might really mean. *shrug* I don't know what to tell her, but that I don't think she's crazy, certifiable or schizo.
*** To clarify, some folks who practice Reiki and some other types of energy work and hands on healing are not necessarily non-Christian. They are Christians who believe that these are the practical teachings of what Jesus meant when he said, "greater works than these..." and that they are the techniques of hands on healing seen in the Bible - much like is recorded regarding Elijah, Elisha and, even Jesus.
You all know what the real ironic thing about Johnj's posts about atheism is? It's that it winds up being no more than the standard orthodox information, a 'template' as it were, that he learned from his church, his denomination.
He doesn't even take the time to talk to atheists themselves, get to know them or why they aren't of a religious mindset, or why they left the church/religion, why they think the way they do about religion, and what they actually go through in real life because of their opinions and lack of belief once people find out about their atheism. No, just stick to the same old tired canards and straw man arguments about atheism. ... Talk about not thinking for yourself as distinct from a 'cultic' group mindset!
He further argues "One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea (ie., freedom) ends up in anarchy." (Emphasis mine)
This is another big clue as to what is wrong with what he's posting here. Notice how this freedom (supposedly) leads to anarchy, ... and yet he 'likes freedom too'. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? You like some of that which leads to a result you don't like?? I laughed out loud when I read that one.
Yet Another Clue: "... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)..." Here's a way of rephrasing that idea that still flows with your 'logic' that you haven't thought of, John. "... or with society making up the standards (ask unbelievers in orthodox Christianity in America run by the Religious Riech if they like that idea, including the same Jewish people, as well as unitarians, and other 'heretics')...". ... Oopsie!
If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.)
Some atheists are raised Christian to one degree or another, then abandon faith. Their lives seem OK.
But I'm most concerned about their children (or grandchildren) who are raised without the same Christian upbringing they had.
First generation atheists I think take some of their Christian upbringing with them into atheism. They live by some Christian values without perhaps admitting it. And these values give them some foundation and benefit.
Keep your concern to yourself then, because you are as qualified to talk about this as I am qualified to talk about the effectiveness of ancient Egyptian brain surgery, or maybe less so.
But the second generation is more likely to abandon those good values and foudnation because they don't have the same Christian upbringing as their parents, and don't have the reason for the values or behavior. The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded. Then parents wonder why their kids didn't turn out to have as good of values or behavior as they did. I often see this even among Christian parents who have faith and morality, but don't give their kids the same Christian training they had growing up. They think their kids will pick it up by osmosis without Christian trainging. But they usually don't.
This simply isn't true. I know people raised by atheists and remained atheist, and they grow up to be normal, well adjusted adults. In fact, they often don't have the baggage and problems that people that grow up in strict Christian households do. You're "they usually don't" claim is purely fictitious. What do you base it on? What your preacher tells you to think?
I suspect that if the USA continues to turn away from its Biblical foundations (which deists had as well as Christians), some "American" values (which are based on the Bible) will erode or change as well. And the result will be that the USA of 2050 will be uglier than that of 1950.
This is a flat out lie. As was said in the treaty of Tripoli, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and it has always been that way. Some of those "American values" you mentioned of the 1950's need to go away. I'm sure that black people will be a lot better off in 2050 than they were in 1950, for example.
I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.
The poor are looked down upon and not cared for well here either. Don't you think our welfare system sucks? Christianity is not the only religion that advocates taking care of each other. The very basis of society is that principle. Even animals have packs, flocks, and other groupings that help them take care of each other, and animals are certainly not Christian.
You view the world through Jesus colored glasses, and are unable to see the bigger picture. You give Christianity credit for things that are common sense and natural, yet you say those same things are somehow bad.
If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.)
P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes. ;)
I disagree with you, there, Garth. I think John has done an excellent service in his exposure of the wrong doctrines, plagiarism and heinous acts of vee pee and TWI. He has helped me immensely and I'm very, very thankful for the amount of time and personal resources he has poured into exposing the evil TWI and vee pee. He has provided the only place I know of that actually shows side by side comparisons of the plagiarized works of vee pee.
I'm also extremely grateful for the time that he continues to donate to Paw and the Cafe and the hours of counseling he has provided some of us.
I just happen to disagree with his viewpoints on this one issue. I do think it's due to a stereo-typical "Christian" mindset and disdain for those who "don't believe" the way we are "supposed to". It's short-sighted and I think that, in this respect, Christianity could learn a thing or thirty from traditional Wicca, Pagan and non-Christian teachings.
You all know what the real ironic thing about Johnj's posts about atheism is? It's that it winds up being no more than the standard orthodox information, a 'template' as it were, that he learned from his church, his denomination.
He doesn't even take the time to talk to atheists themselves, get to know them or why they aren't of a religious mindset, or why they left the church/religion, why they think the way they do about religion, and what they actually go through in real life because of their opinions and lack of belief once people find out about their atheism. No, just stick to the same old tired canards and straw man arguments about atheism. ... Talk about not thinking for yourself as distinct from a 'cultic' group mindset!
He further argues "One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea (ie., freedom) ends up in anarchy." (Emphasis mine)
This is another big clue as to what is wrong with what he's posting here. Notice how this freedom (supposedly) leads to anarchy, ... and yet he 'likes freedom too'. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? You like some of that which leads to a result you don't like?? I laughed out loud when I read that one.
Yet Another Clue: "... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)..." Here's a way of rephrasing that idea that still flows with your 'logic' that you haven't thought of, John. "... or with society making up the standards (ask unbelievers in orthodox Christianity in America run by the Religious Riech if they like that idea, including the same Jewish people, as well as unitarians, and other 'heretics')...". ... Oopsie!
If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.)
P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes. ;)
:) Sometimes, Garth, I have to look myself in the mirror and ask myself: Am I actually nodding my head in agreement to what Garth just said? And the evidence that I see indicates that I am. Either that or I have some sort of malady that makes my head nod up and down and I'm just mistaken. ;)
I think John has done an excellent service in his exposure of the wrong doctrines, plagiarism and heinous acts of vee pee and TWI.
Which is one reason why I'm surprised at his obviously flawed reasonings re: atheists. Frankly, I expected better, more informed conclusions on this topic, based on his thoroughness in his work about TWI.
On the other hand, I'm not really surprised, as such is standard fare among a lot of ministers when they speak of atheism, ... with the same low quality level of researching skills as I indicated re: Juedes.
Which is one reason why I'm surprised at his obviously flawed reasonings re: atheists. Frankly, I expected better, more informed conclusions on this topic, based on his thoroughness in his work about TWI.
On the other hand, I'm not really surprised, as such is standard fare among a lot of ministers when they speak of atheism, ... with the same low quality level of researching skills as I indicated re: Juedes.
See?
So, how does one properly study atheism? What's the missing information? And how is anyone's take on atheism flawed?
Well, one could actually talk to, and listen to, an atheist (preferably a lot more than just one) and get their take as to why they don't believe in God, or have walked away from religion. On this particular atheist site, read the deconversion stories in detail, and find out what people went through before and during their deconversion, and still go through because of it.
Hope this helps you to see what it is _really_ all about.
I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.
I just couldn't let this one slide by either.
I don't know what periodical you were reading this article in, but their research is lacking.
I haven't "read" many articles about Japan. I've just lived there for a few weeks or a few months a year for the last 12 years or so. Maybe you'd be interested in knowing just how barbaric those heathen bastards are, huh?
Fer instance, did you know that just about anywhere you go in Japan, any train station, any sidewalk, any stairway, there will be grooved tiles inset in the pavement to direct the blind as to which way the street runs, when an intersection is coming up, etc. and every handrail has a Braille notation at the bottom and top of the stairway to let the person know where the stairway leads. There's also government provided vocational training for the blind and mentally handicapped in virtually every city that I've lived in. As well as government housing for same.
Also, during the recent meltdown of the economy, due to a real-estate bubble burst (uh, something we're just about to find out about ourselves) the homeless were provided with temporary housing in the parks in Tokyo. They set up house-tents, showers (and BATHS!) and provided phones for the homeless as well as laundry facitlities, and train vouchers, so those folks weren't trapped in their situation, but could actively go out and seek employment, without having to explain why they didn't have a contact #, etc.
Another thing you'd notice in any Japanese town, would one care enough to look, is that there are not "bad" parts of town. They don't have a "good" side of the tracks and a "bad" side. The wealthy live in houses, the middle and upper-middle class live in condos or apartments. But any part of town is as well kept up as any other.
No, the "Christian" ethic isn't a big part of culture, though Lord knows it doesn't stop the westerners from trying. No, they have a "Confuscian" mindset. Individual responsiblity to the group is stressed above all else. Their entire culture revolves around that. Hence, there is no litter. No graffitti. Everything is clean, and stays that way. And, to a great extent, there are no poor. People aren't given welfare maybe, I don't know, but they ARE given jobs. If you want a job, someone will see to it that you get one, for the most part. Maybe it's a jerk-off job, pointing out where the stairway is to the tourists in the airport, or manning an "information" booth in the train station, but you CAN get a job.
Even people who were layed off from their jobs, often never know it. Why? Because the company notifies the government that they have employees who are no longer needed, the government pays the company to keep the employees on, and the government picks up the tab for the salary. The employee never even knows that he's been "rif-ed", so his honor can remain intact, even if his duties at work become rather repetitive. Yeah, it's a cruel, evil system those heathen S.O.B.s have got going, I'll say.
And just FYI, Japan is sort of a "two-part" religion country. Everyone born in Japan is assumed to be part of the national religion - Shintoism, but they are also (usually) Buddhist as well. Shinto covers for things in the here and now. They have gods for abundance, longlife, wisdom, happiness, - all of that. Then Buddhism is for when you check out of this world, so you can spend your afterlife in Nervana, or whereever. Hey, makes as much sense to me as a religion based on human sacrifice and cannabalism.
There are NUMEROUS things that I find fault with the country about, but how they take care of their less fortunate ISN"T one of 'em...
Yeah, the fact that Atheism has no set of beliefs other than there is no God or gods, leaves a lot up to speculation. That's unfortunate when people read into it "amoral people" verus "moral people who have left God behind". I'm sure it has it's share of both kinds of people, as do all the religious organizations.
Funny, but I fail to see a connection between belief and morality. In fact, the most debauched bastards I've ever known personally were also the most ardent in their faith. .
I just read a Newsweek article last week (not a Christian publication) that did link religion and morality. The article noted that 60% of students admit to cheating (and how many more don't admit to it?). The studies stated that cheating was linked to nonreligious to not cheating was linked to being religious. It did not say, nor do I mean to say, that 100% of religious people are always honest and 100% of nonreligious are cheaters, but that there is a significant link between the two.
One reason for this is that people have what the Bible calls a sinful nature. That's hard to deny. Parents typically have to teach their children to share, not to be selfish, for example. Selfish comes naturally. What moral religions such as Crhistianity do is to hem it in. The fact that many people who claim to be religious don't actually follow Biblical morality doesn't mean that religion is bad in itself. In fact, if you say that such people are bad because they don't follow Biblical principles, you're indirectly admitting that the religious moral standards are in fact good.
Some of the posts above seem to use some very inflamatory terms to describe religious and/or Christian people, which surprised me coming from such reasonable atheist/ agnostics as yourselves.
No country, people or government is entirely religious or atheistic. But some countries are officially atheistic, such as China, N Korea, the former USSR, and they attemopt to enforce atheism.
Is atheism more commonly linked to freedom or to oppression?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
29
Popular Days
Oct 27
29
Oct 21
28
Oct 26
23
Oct 23
20
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 15 posts
Belle 17 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Suda 29 posts
Popular Days
Oct 27 2007
29 posts
Oct 21 2007
28 posts
Oct 26 2007
23 posts
Oct 23 2007
20 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I came to Wayworld as an agnostic. I had spent some 20 years or so of my youth in either a Lutheran Church or the Methodist Reformed (now ask me if I could tell the difference) and was pretty much tir
johniam
quote: Uh, so you became a Christian all on yer own? All of a sudden it dawned on you that there was this guy Jesus and he'd done some really neat stuff for you?
That's why I say "beyond that required of other conclusions".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's clear you don't understand the term "agnostic", which basically means the "clean slate" you are talking about. Atheism is what you are more against and consider a belief system, although there are different types of atheists.
Atheists like me and apparently George simply stopped worrying about the whole "god" thing and moved on with our lives. I see no evidence that a god exists, so I don't believe in it. It's not that I have "proof" there is no god, there's just no proof that there is one either, so why should I believe in it? It's not a "belief system", because there is nothing to believe in. It's literally the absence of belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
To me, atheism doesn't have good answers on some important questions, but this isn't always apparent until later, or until atheism dominates a society instead of being a small percentage of it as it is in the US.
One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea ends up in anarchy. It's impossible to have complete freedom without injuring each other. (If my values say stealing is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, that sounds good to you until you're my victim or vice versa.) A society can tolerate a few anarchists, but if a lot opf people become that way, it'll be obvious it doesn't work. WHich is why we need a Lord.
Another problem (related to anarchy) is standards. If there are no universal standards, you're left with anarchy (mutual blood-letting of many kinds)... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)... of oppresive dictatorship (this is the way of evolution- survival of the fittest). We need one Lord to survive as humans with some civility. Some days I think it would be a lot easier to not be a Christian. Then I wouldn't have to have quams about cheating on my wife when I felt like it, being harsh with my kids, stealing, etc. But the sensible part of me tells me that I'm better off in the long run with God's standards than following my feelings.
One of the "big" reasons people abandon God is that they've been disappointed. A loved one dies, they get a chronic disease, etc. Then we ask "why?" and conclude God is not around so abandon beleif. But the fact is, abandoning God does not make disaoointment go away. Atheists still wonder "why?" and are no less disappointed with how life turns out than Christans are. But Christians have God to help them through it, which makes more sense to me.
I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. Not just overlloking our bad side and saying it's OK because we all have it. But genuine grace, calling our bad side genuinely evil, but having God's grace to forgive and more than cover it, to treat us better than we deserve. And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve.
So on the big questions, to me Christianity has better answers than atheism/agnosticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Some atheists are raised Christian to one degree or another, then abandon faith. Their lives seem OK.
But I'm most concerned about their children (or grandchildren) who are raised without the same Christian upbringing they had.
First generation atheists I think take some of their Christian upbringing with them into atheism. They live by some Christian values without perhaps admitting it. And these values give them some foundation and benefit.
But the second generation is more likely to abandon those good values and foudnation because they don't have the same Christian upbringing as their parents, and don't have the reason for the values or behavior. The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded. Then parents wonder why their kids didn't turn out to have as good of values or behavior as they did. I often see this even among Christian parents who have faith and morality, but don't give their kids the same Christian training they had growing up. They think their kids will pick it up by osmosis without Christian trainging. But they usually don't.
I suspect that if the USA continues to turn away from its Biblical foundations (which deists had as well as Christians), some "American" values (which are based on the Bible) will erode or change as well. And the result will be that the USA of 2050 will be uglier than that of 1950.
I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Interesting how you equate atheism with anarchy. I guess that's supposed to be a self-evident result?
News to me. Likewise you assume that without a holy thunderer to keep us in line, the first thing we'll do is step out on our wives and maybe indulge in unbridled nose-picking?
Funny, but I fail to see a connection between belief and morality. In fact, the most debauched bastards I've ever known personally were also the most ardent in their faith. Maybe I just knew the bad ones?
Oh, and do tell me about how awful it is in Japan. Obviously, they worship the wrong god...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: It's clear you don't understand the term "agnostic", which basically means the "clean slate" you are talking about. Atheism is what you are more against and consider a belief system, although there are different types of atheists.
Atheists like me and apparently George simply stopped worrying about the whole "god" thing and moved on with our lives. I see no evidence that a god exists, so I don't believe in it. It's not that I have "proof" there is no god, there's just no proof that there is one either, so why should I believe in it? It's not a "belief system", because there is nothing to believe in. It's literally the absence of belief.
I think everybody has a belief system. I was taught that atheists are SURE there's no God, but agnostics weren't sure, but leaning that way and not easily swayed by religious people. Former Detroit Piston center Bill Laimbier described himself that way once. He said he's not sure one way or the other if there's a God or not, but he definitely doesn't allow religious people to tell him how to go about his business.
I've never read or heard a dictionary type definition of agnostic, but I'm curious as to the breakdown of...a (not) gnostic (the gnostics were a very influential cult during the 1st century). Interesting. But even saying there's no proof of the existence of God in and of itself is systematic. It presupposes that the issue has been considered, weighed, and evaluated. That's pretty much what a belief system is. I don't think religion should be penalized as a belief system just because it includes a God. God's not down here directing traffic; it's just you and me on a level playing field. I don't have a problem with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Johniam:
The similarity between the gnostics and the "-gnostic" part of agnostic is because they come from the same root, gnosis, i.e. "knowledge".
I've found the following link to be helpful:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
...and I don't think it's so much that agnotics (or atheists for that matter) consider that "the issue has been considered, weighed, and evaluated" so much but that they personally have not seen convincing evidence of the existence of God.
Johnj:
Any backing to your assumption that atheism = anarchy?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I'm not aware of atheism ever dominating a society in modern times (communism doesn't count because it uses religious ideas as a base of government worship).
So you support freedom for some but slavery for most? You're presenting a false situation. If religion is man-made, that means that morals are man-made as well. Things like stealing not being morally acceptable are based on common sense and should not need a "lord" to enslave you and tell you right from wrong. If you can't tell right from wrong on a basic level you have a mental illness. Most people, Christian or not, know that it is wrong to steal.
Alternatively, letting society define the rules rather than being under religious tyranny results in things like Democracy and Representative Republics. You can't just pick and choose the worst. Governments come from societies creating order, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad.
This is a pure strawman. I'm not dissapointed with life after becoming an atheist. I'm pretty happy and live much more comfortably than I did as a Christian. You just make this stuff up to make yourself feel better about your choice.
You don't know what I need, and somehow I doubt you've looked into any religions other than Christianity for anything.
That is your choice, but you don't need to act so egotistical and high and mighty in rejecting other people's choices. Don't state your opinions as fact and tell us that everyone needs to think like you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:huh: Wow, John J, you really don’t have much faith in humanity, do you? Do you really think that non-Chrisitians would bring the world to its knees with corruption, debauchery and violence if they were to become the majority?
Aren’t there scriptures that refer to the fact that non-Christians “do good” and “live well” even without the Christian laws?
Are not so-called “Christians” responsible for some of the most violent, heinous and inhumane actions, battles and wars in history? A "Christian" government scares me more than anything else - I'm afraid we'd see things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Scarlett Letter, Witch Hunts, suppression of ancient manuscripts and the like all over again. We've come a long way regarding religious tolerance and education of different beliefs - including how absolutely similar they all are.
It seems much more peaceful to have rulers who don't really care what people believe - or if they "believe" anything at all. *shrug* Dunno why that's so threatening to so-called Christians. I'll tell ya, though, it's one reason why I've got the utmost respect for Wiccca, Pagan, atheist, agnostic and even Judaic studies - as a whole, the attitude is, "this works for me - may not work for you, but it's what I study, believe and practice. Good luck with whatever it is you decide is best for you.
On another note, some people can't be pigeonholed as atheist nor agnostic - they just don't care - there may or may not be a God, but they just don't really care and certainly aren't going to waste any more of their time trying to decide what "label" to put on their beliefs.... I'm pretty much coming to that conclusion myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
(((((Suda)))))
Most of us can be rather caustic and downright crude in our language at times - especially when the topic is something we're extremely passionate about. :) There are, also, personality differences and maturity levels that generate a prism of expression among people. I wish that I could control my volume and tone of voice better when I'm peeved about some things. I know it's possible because I am able to do it in other situations.
Earlier, you mentioned supernatural-like experiences and those carrying some weight regarding one's belief in God. I know some people who have had these kinds of experiences while practicing Reiki or some other non-Christian belief and they only serve to strengthen whatever it is that person believed in or was practicing at the time. Likewise, others have searched for logical, scientific explanations for what they experienced and not found one.
A friend of mine hears classical music in her head - beautiful music she's never heard before in her life. It's only happened to her a few times and, while she enjoys the private concert it scares her because she doesn't believe it's God trying to tell her something - she doesn't believe it's the "ascended masters" trying to communicate with her - she doesn't know enough about chakras, vibrational levels and the such to know if that's really a true/viable explanation but she knows she's not insane and she's knows she's not schizophrenic, which is the prevalent medical explanation. So my friend suffers in silence, afraid to talk about it and afraid of what it might really mean. *shrug* I don't know what to tell her, but that I don't think she's crazy, certifiable or schizo.
*** To clarify, some folks who practice Reiki and some other types of energy work and hands on healing are not necessarily non-Christian. They are Christians who believe that these are the practical teachings of what Jesus meant when he said, "greater works than these..." and that they are the techniques of hands on healing seen in the Bible - much like is recorded regarding Elijah, Elisha and, even Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You all know what the real ironic thing about Johnj's posts about atheism is? It's that it winds up being no more than the standard orthodox information, a 'template' as it were, that he learned from his church, his denomination.
He doesn't even take the time to talk to atheists themselves, get to know them or why they aren't of a religious mindset, or why they left the church/religion, why they think the way they do about religion, and what they actually go through in real life because of their opinions and lack of belief once people find out about their atheism. No, just stick to the same old tired canards and straw man arguments about atheism. ... Talk about not thinking for yourself as distinct from a 'cultic' group mindset!
He further argues "One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea (ie., freedom) ends up in anarchy." (Emphasis mine)
This is another big clue as to what is wrong with what he's posting here. Notice how this freedom (supposedly) leads to anarchy, ... and yet he 'likes freedom too'. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? You like some of that which leads to a result you don't like??
I laughed out loud when I read that one.
Yet Another Clue: "... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)..." Here's a way of rephrasing that idea that still flows with your 'logic' that you haven't thought of, John. "... or with society making up the standards (ask unbelievers in orthodox Christianity in America run by the Religious Riech if they like that idea, including the same Jewish people, as well as unitarians, and other 'heretics')...". ... Oopsie!
If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.)
P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Keep your concern to yourself then, because you are as qualified to talk about this as I am qualified to talk about the effectiveness of ancient Egyptian brain surgery, or maybe less so.
This simply isn't true. I know people raised by atheists and remained atheist, and they grow up to be normal, well adjusted adults. In fact, they often don't have the baggage and problems that people that grow up in strict Christian households do. You're "they usually don't" claim is purely fictitious. What do you base it on? What your preacher tells you to think?
This is a flat out lie. As was said in the treaty of Tripoli, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and it has always been that way. Some of those "American values" you mentioned of the 1950's need to go away. I'm sure that black people will be a lot better off in 2050 than they were in 1950, for example.
The poor are looked down upon and not cared for well here either. Don't you think our welfare system sucks? Christianity is not the only religion that advocates taking care of each other. The very basis of society is that principle. Even animals have packs, flocks, and other groupings that help them take care of each other, and animals are certainly not Christian.
You view the world through Jesus colored glasses, and are unable to see the bigger picture. You give Christianity credit for things that are common sense and natural, yet you say those same things are somehow bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I disagree with you, there, Garth. I think John has done an excellent service in his exposure of the wrong doctrines, plagiarism and heinous acts of vee pee and TWI. He has helped me immensely and I'm very, very thankful for the amount of time and personal resources he has poured into exposing the evil TWI and vee pee. He has provided the only place I know of that actually shows side by side comparisons of the plagiarized works of vee pee.
I'm also extremely grateful for the time that he continues to donate to Paw and the Cafe and the hours of counseling he has provided some of us.
I just happen to disagree with his viewpoints on this one issue. I do think it's due to a stereo-typical "Christian" mindset and disdain for those who "don't believe" the way we are "supposed to". It's short-sighted and I think that, in this respect, Christianity could learn a thing or thirty from traditional Wicca, Pagan and non-Christian teachings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) Sometimes, Garth, I have to look myself in the mirror and ask myself: Am I actually nodding my head in agreement to what Garth just said? And the evidence that I see indicates that I am. Either that or I have some sort of malady that makes my head nod up and down and I'm just mistaken. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Belle,
Which is one reason why I'm surprised at his obviously flawed reasonings re: atheists. Frankly, I expected better, more informed conclusions on this topic, based on his thoroughness in his work about TWI.
On the other hand, I'm not really surprised, as such is standard fare among a lot of ministers when they speak of atheism, ... with the same low quality level of researching skills as I indicated re: Juedes.
See?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So, how does one properly study atheism? What's the missing information? And how is anyone's take on atheism flawed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, one could actually talk to, and listen to, an atheist (preferably a lot more than just one) and get their take as to why they don't believe in God, or have walked away from religion. On this particular atheist site, read the deconversion stories in detail, and find out what people went through before and during their deconversion, and still go through because of it.
Hope this helps you to see what it is _really_ all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9012.htm
Makes me wish I never had a son. It's cruel to bring someone into this craphole of a world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I just couldn't let this one slide by either.
I don't know what periodical you were reading this article in, but their research is lacking.
I haven't "read" many articles about Japan. I've just lived there for a few weeks or a few months a year for the last 12 years or so. Maybe you'd be interested in knowing just how barbaric those heathen bastards are, huh?
Fer instance, did you know that just about anywhere you go in Japan, any train station, any sidewalk, any stairway, there will be grooved tiles inset in the pavement to direct the blind as to which way the street runs, when an intersection is coming up, etc. and every handrail has a Braille notation at the bottom and top of the stairway to let the person know where the stairway leads. There's also government provided vocational training for the blind and mentally handicapped in virtually every city that I've lived in. As well as government housing for same.
Also, during the recent meltdown of the economy, due to a real-estate bubble burst (uh, something we're just about to find out about ourselves) the homeless were provided with temporary housing in the parks in Tokyo. They set up house-tents, showers (and BATHS!) and provided phones for the homeless as well as laundry facitlities, and train vouchers, so those folks weren't trapped in their situation, but could actively go out and seek employment, without having to explain why they didn't have a contact #, etc.
Another thing you'd notice in any Japanese town, would one care enough to look, is that there are not "bad" parts of town. They don't have a "good" side of the tracks and a "bad" side. The wealthy live in houses, the middle and upper-middle class live in condos or apartments. But any part of town is as well kept up as any other.
No, the "Christian" ethic isn't a big part of culture, though Lord knows it doesn't stop the westerners from trying. No, they have a "Confuscian" mindset. Individual responsiblity to the group is stressed above all else. Their entire culture revolves around that. Hence, there is no litter. No graffitti. Everything is clean, and stays that way. And, to a great extent, there are no poor. People aren't given welfare maybe, I don't know, but they ARE given jobs. If you want a job, someone will see to it that you get one, for the most part. Maybe it's a jerk-off job, pointing out where the stairway is to the tourists in the airport, or manning an "information" booth in the train station, but you CAN get a job.
Even people who were layed off from their jobs, often never know it. Why? Because the company notifies the government that they have employees who are no longer needed, the government pays the company to keep the employees on, and the government picks up the tab for the salary. The employee never even knows that he's been "rif-ed", so his honor can remain intact, even if his duties at work become rather repetitive. Yeah, it's a cruel, evil system those heathen S.O.B.s have got going, I'll say.
And just FYI, Japan is sort of a "two-part" religion country. Everyone born in Japan is assumed to be part of the national religion - Shintoism, but they are also (usually) Buddhist as well. Shinto covers for things in the here and now. They have gods for abundance, longlife, wisdom, happiness, - all of that. Then Buddhism is for when you check out of this world, so you can spend your afterlife in Nervana, or whereever. Hey, makes as much sense to me as a religion based on human sacrifice and cannabalism.
There are NUMEROUS things that I find fault with the country about, but how they take care of their less fortunate ISN"T one of 'em...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Yeah, the fact that Atheism has no set of beliefs other than there is no God or gods, leaves a lot up to speculation. That's unfortunate when people read into it "amoral people" verus "moral people who have left God behind". I'm sure it has it's share of both kinds of people, as do all the religious organizations.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Makes me wish I never had a son. It's cruel to bring someone into this craphole of a world."
Oh, gawd, get a grip already...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Seriously? A major factor for you wanting to bring a kid into the world was eternal life? Non-existence is better than existence with an end?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I just read a Newsweek article last week (not a Christian publication) that did link religion and morality. The article noted that 60% of students admit to cheating (and how many more don't admit to it?). The studies stated that cheating was linked to nonreligious to not cheating was linked to being religious. It did not say, nor do I mean to say, that 100% of religious people are always honest and 100% of nonreligious are cheaters, but that there is a significant link between the two.
One reason for this is that people have what the Bible calls a sinful nature. That's hard to deny. Parents typically have to teach their children to share, not to be selfish, for example. Selfish comes naturally. What moral religions such as Crhistianity do is to hem it in. The fact that many people who claim to be religious don't actually follow Biblical morality doesn't mean that religion is bad in itself. In fact, if you say that such people are bad because they don't follow Biblical principles, you're indirectly admitting that the religious moral standards are in fact good.
Some of the posts above seem to use some very inflamatory terms to describe religious and/or Christian people, which surprised me coming from such reasonable atheist/ agnostics as yourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
No country, people or government is entirely religious or atheistic. But some countries are officially atheistic, such as China, N Korea, the former USSR, and they attemopt to enforce atheism.
Is atheism more commonly linked to freedom or to oppression?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.